Holographic Universe

Hello everyone,

my first post in many months... have been around but just reading and haven't felt then need to post anything new... until now.

I've come across this theory i think its called the Hollographic Universe... here is a link which explains the basics of it:

www.earthportals.com...

The book argues that the Universe is actually a hologram and that this explains how faster-than-light communication can occur between distant particles, not because information can travel faster than light, but because there is in 'reality' no distance between the particles...

Now, i have a few questions about this for those of you that are already familiar with this theory or for those that are interested in it...

1.) how come the only websites which mention this theory are religous/spiritual websites and no mainstream science journals?

2.) is this theory dead? i mean, has it been disproven or pushed to one side, because there seems to be no new information out there... just this old book and websites which quote that book...

3.) also, the theory seems to be very... metaphysical... there isn't really any real science behind it, the entire theory is kinda built on this assumption that because information has been shown to travel faster than light, then the universe must be a hologram BECAUSE information cannot travel faster than light... well, does anyone know of any real science that is relevant to this theory, or which at least gives this theory some credibility and maybe at least expands upon it...

for example,

Pribram's holographic model of the brain,

Argentinian-Italian researcher Hugo Zucarelli's technology of holophonic sound, a recording technique able to reproduce acoustic situations with an almost uncanny realism.

many thanks




[edit on 23-6-2005 by metallicabrainz]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by metallicabrainz]

Most the time, the scientific community focuses on it's own dogma, weighing it with the finding. It erks them to come across a theory that deals with the universe actually being one giant phantasm. So it's easy to pass off onto the "spiritual" community. It takes a long time for newer theories to gain any kind of respectful ground.

I came across the theory in a scientific journal, online somewhere, but i can't recall what it was, (It was threw a metaphysical/ spiritual site link though).

[edit on 23-6-2005 by Pandoras Box]

This has been discussed under a different thread in this section. I am currently reading the book The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot, and can understand why it wouldn't be very mainstream. I am no physicist or scientist, but even I can tell it can be quite controversial, especially to the older of the community who are firm in thweir beliefs.

Well, I'd like to see some evidence. All it said was "Aspect found information" which is about as reliable as my left hand (I'm a righty). Also, I don't buy it at all.

1. Because it's not scientific, it just uses logic to debate a point. It skips that whole theory-evidence part.

2. I think so, because it's not really worthwhile as far as anything outside of existentialism is concerned. I could say the earth is really a star, but it'd be a dead theory since there's no proof, no reason, no nothing.

3. Nope.

This concept/theory does seem very metaphysical.

So Holographic as a term seems more like a metaphor for how we may actually "perceive" the universe, or physical reality.

On the other hand, the only holographic universe I remember, was on
StarTrek: Voyager

[edit on 24-6-2005 by cosmokatt7]

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
Well, I'd like to see some evidence. All it said was "Aspect found information" which is about as reliable as my left hand (I'm a righty). Also, I don't buy it at all.

1. Because it's not scientific, it just uses logic to debate a point. It skips that whole theory-evidence part.

2. I think so, because it's not really worthwhile as far as anything outside of existentialism is concerned. I could say the earth is really a star, but it'd be a dead theory since there's no proof, no reason, no nothing.

3. Nope.

I wouldnt just blow it off cause it dosnt have any evidence. From what I know the theory is still new, so they havnt really figured everything out. Do you know what happend to some people when they started saying the earth wasnt flat? Some people where killed for saying such "radical" statements like that back-in-the-day! Ive read just a little bit of it in "the universe in a nutshell", but it never really went into it to hardcore. Im not saying its true, but saying its possible.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by TravisT]

I still think it's pretty scientific. It was also created at the same time by to different scientists, in two different fields, independently of each other. David Bohm and Karl Pribram. And I don't think it's just logic, there must have been scientific indications pointing into that direction.

1. There are scientific websites on which I have seen the holographic theory.

2. I don't think it has been disproven yet.

3. Yes it does seem to be very metaphysic. IMO science will become more metaphysic in the future.

Here's a scientific discussion on it.
www.consciousness.arizona.edu...

[edit on 26-6-2005 by TheBandit795]

I've got a pritty big problem with one of the basic assumptions of this theory and other theory's about Holographic imaging and their relation to other things.

One of these basics is derived from an experiment with Holographic imaging where they cut up the "negative" of a holographic photo and find that the resulting image is not a section of the original but the full original in miniature.

The problem I have with this is that noone ever has taken the time to find out, if this effect is in essence attributable to "a hologram" in general or if its an effect attributable to the method used to record the holographic image.

Great topic.

"The problem I have with this is that noone ever has taken the time to find out, if this effect is in essence attributable to "a hologram" in general or if its an effect attributable to the method used to record the holographic image."

Its the same thing. A Hologram IS the process by which when they chop up the negitive you get the full image each individual piece. Its the same thing. But this is NOT a THREAD about HOLOGRAMS... heh.... it is about if the universe is real or not.

(or at least I thought so)

"3. Yes it does seem to be very metaphysic. IMO science will become more metaphysic in the future."

It will... it already has.. with many scientists now beliveing in god.


"Well, I'd like to see some evidence. All it said was "Aspect found information" which is about as reliable as my left hand (I'm a righty). Also, I don't buy it at all."


Wrong attitude ... totally.


This guy isn't MAKING A SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IN HIS BOOK... remember that old "The more scientific equasions in the book, the less people will read it." statement attributed to Hawking?


He is simply saying "We've done some research, and we've got some odd results and here is what those results told us and here is WHAT WE THINK THAT COULD MEAN."


He just wants you to think and to sell some books so he can go on a speaking tour about this subject.


But he obviously failed at both or you'd understand that he didn't have ANY EVIDENCE because if he DID then it would be ONE OF THOSE THINGS that people do NOT have to go on speaking tours about because it wouldn't be that interesting to anyone anymore.


Sometimes its fun just to speculate.

I love this subject. I remember first reading about this in the Scientific American Aug 2003 issue. They ran an article named Information in the Holographic Universe (link). If you haven't' read it yet I suggest you do. Really interesting stuff that will have you thinking for weeks.

An astonishing theory called the holographic principle holds that the universe is like a hologram: just as a trick of light allows a fully three-dimensional image to be recorded on a flat piece of film, our seemingly three-dimensional universe could be completely equivalent to alternative quantum fields and physical laws "painted" on a distant, vast surface.

Our innate perception that the world is three-dimensional could be an extraordinary illusion

[edit on 26-6-2005 by dbates]